Professional Documents
Culture Documents
University of Immaculate Concepcion,. Inc. v. Sec. of Labor
University of Immaculate Concepcion,. Inc. v. Sec. of Labor
University of Immaculate Concepcion,. Inc. v. Sec. of Labor
of Labor (2005)
Petitioners: UNIVERSITY OF IMMACULATE CONCEPCION, INC.
Respondents: THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF LABOR, THE UIC TEACHING AND NONTEACHING PERSONNEL AND EMPLOYEES UNION, LELIAN CONCON, MARY ANN DE RAMOS,
JOVITA MAMBURAM, ANGELINA ABADILLA, MELANIE DE LA ROSA, ZENAIDA CANOY, ALMA
VILLACARLOS, JOSIE BOSTON, PAULINA PALMA GIL, GEMMA GALOPE, LEAH CRUZA, DELFA
DIAPUEZ
Ponente: AZCUNA
Topic: Management Prerogative
FACTS:
The UNION, as the certified bargaining agent of all rank and file employees of the
UNIVERSITY, submitted its collective bargaining proposals to the latter on February 16,
1994. However, one item was left unresolved and this was the inclusion or exclusion of the
following positions in the scope of the bargaining unit:
a. Secretaries
b. Registrars
c. Accounting Personnel
d. Guidance Counselors
This matter was submitted for voluntary arbitration. On November 8, 1994, the panel of
voluntary arbitrators decided to:
o Exclude the secretaries, registrars, chief of the accounting department, cashiers
and guidance counselors from the coverage of the bargaining unit; and
o Include the accounting clerks and the accounting staff member.
The UNION moved for reconsideration.
Pending the resolution of its motion, on December 9, 1994, it filed a notice of strike with the
National Conciliation and Mediation Board (NCMB) of Davao City, on the grounds of
bargaining deadlock and unfair labor practice. During the thirty (30) day cooling-off period,
two union members were dismissed by petitioner. Consequently, the UNION went on strike
on January 20, 1995.
On January 23, 1995, the then Secretary of Labor, Ma. Nieves R. Confessor, issued an
Order assuming jurisdiction over the labor dispute.
On February 8, 1995, the panel of voluntary arbitrators denied the motion for
reconsideration filed by the UNION. The UNIVERSITY then furnished copies of the panels
denial of the motion for reconsideration and the Decision dated November 8, 1995 to the
individual respondents. The UNIVERSITY then gave the individual respondents two
choices: to resign from the UNION and remain employed as confidential employees or
resign from their confidential positions and remain members of the UNION. The
UNIVERSITY relayed to these employees that they could not remain as confidential
employees and at the same time as members or officers of the Union.
However, the individual respondents remained steadfast in their claim that they could still
retain their confidential positions while being members or officers of the Union. Hence, on
February 21, 1995, the UNIVERSITY sent notices of termination to the individual
respondents.
On March 10, 1995, the UNION filed another notice of strike, this time citing as a reason the
UNIVERSITYs termination of the individual respondents. The UNION alleged that the
ISSUES:
WoN the Secretary cannot take cognizance of an issue involving employees who are not
part of the bargaining unit
o NO, he can. In Metrolab Industries, Inc. v. Roldan-Confessor, the Supreme Court
declared that it recognizes the exercise of management prerogatives and it often
declines to interfere with the legitimate business decisions of the employer. This is
in keeping with the general principle embodied in Article XIII, Section 3 of the
Constitution, which is further echoed in Article 211 (now 218 Declaration of Policy
in Book V) of the Labor Code. However, as expressed in PAL v. National Labor
Relations Commission, this privilege is not absolute, but subject to exceptions. One
of these exceptions is when the Secretary of Labor assumes jurisdiction over
NOTES (obiter):
With respect to the Secretarys Order allowing payroll reinstatement instead of actual
reinstatement for the individual respondents herein, an amendment to the previous Orders
issued by her office, the same is usually not allowed. Article 263(g) (now 278) of the Labor
Code states that all workers must immediately return to work and all employers must
readmit all of them under the same terms and conditions prevailing before the strike or
lockout. The phrase under the same terms and conditions makes it clear that the norm is
actual reinstatement. This is consistent with the idea that any work stoppage or slowdown in
that particular industry can be detrimental to the national interest.
As an exception to the rule, payroll reinstatement must rest on special circumstances that
render actual reinstatement impracticable or otherwise not conducive to attaining the
purposes of the law.
The superseding circumstances mentioned by the Acting Secretary of Labor no doubt refer
to the final decision of the panel of arbitrators as to the confidential nature of the positions of
the twelve private respondents, thereby rendering their actual and physical reinstatement
impracticable and more likely to exacerbate the situation. The payroll reinstatement in lieu of
actual reinstatement ordered in these cases, therefore, appears justified as an exception to
the rule until the validity of their termination is finally resolved. This Court sees no grave
abuse of discretion on the part of the Acting Secretary of Labor in ordering the same.
Furthermore, the issue has not been raised by any party in this case.